Thursday, June 27, 2013

Mass Resistance: Analysis of DOMA and Prop 8 Supreme Court rulings: What happened and why --
and what's next

Wednesday the US Supreme Court gave the radical homosexual movement in America a
big victory.

Taken in the context of human history this was incomprehensible. Any other
generation, looking at this, would think the Justices had lost their minds.
First and foremost, it shows that the homosexual movement can now use the courts
to accomplish many of their goals, no matter how outlandish and undemocratic.
And down the road the same legal "logic" can almost surely be used to declare laws
against polygamy and polyandry unconstitutional.

The mainstream media reacted predictably.

There is no question that the Court's rulings were largely political and true
to the
increasingly radical makeup of the Court. We are dealing with same majority of leftist judges who
declared Obamacare to be a legal "tax." Adding to that is the general pro-gay
climate in Washington, and intense lobbying on several fronts on this issue.
Plus, a lot of the blame goes to pro-family lawyers afraid to use effective
arguments.

The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA)
is unconstitutional. (Section 3 defines marriage as one man and one woman for
federal government purposes.) Specifically, they said that treating "legally
married same-sex couples" differently is a violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth
Amendments of the US Constitution.

What's particularly disturbing is the twisted legal logic the Court used to come
to these conclusions. They basically lifted the talking points of the homosexual
"gay marriage" lobby. The Court created a "class" of people -- homosexuals --
and declared that their behaviors and "unions" were no different than any other.
And the pro-family lawyers did nothing to effectively counter those assumptions,
so the Court basically ran with it and extrapolated absurd Constitutional
"rights" from it.

So we are left with Supreme Court language that will surely haunt us more down
the road.

And what's next?

In the near term, this will radically change things on a federal level,
especially given the Obama Administration's enthusiasm for pushing "gay
marriage." As we outlined in
our April 8 report, overturning Section 3 of DOMA will accomplish the
following:

(1) All federal benefits. It will require the federal government
(funded by taxpayers in all 50 states) to include homosexual "marriages" in all
federal benefits. This includes Social Security, federal pensions, Medicare,
Medicaid, Veterans' benefits, and everything else involving marriage, including
filing jointly on Federal income taxes.

(2) All federal programs. It also includes access to federal programs and
other things run or controlled by the federal government, such as housing,
federal loans, passports, health insurance, military housing, burial in military
cemeteries, etc. Thus, the federal government would recognize homosexual
behavior as equal to regular marriage throughout the range of all its
activities.

(3) But even more frightening: Any federal funded contract, program, or
activity. Given the wording of the decision it will also likely extend to
any activities that receive federal funding, such as state programs, college
programs, and virtually anything else involving federal money, such as federal
contracts. We believe that the Obama administration will use this as a lever to
accelerate the forced equalization of homosexuality with heterosexuality in all
federal activities or anything connected to federal money -- similar to the way
it did in the military with the repeal of "Don't Ask Don't Tell."
Judging from Obama's
statement celebrating the ruling, we can
expect them to move as fast as possible.

Down the road: Legal challenges to other states' marriage amendments.
This also opens the door for homosexual activists to go get friendly federal
judges across the country to go state by state and strike down each state's
constitutional amendments banning same-sex "marriage." They will cite the US
Supreme Court's use of the 5th and 14th Amendments to support "gay marriage"
rights and work to extrapolate that to individual states.

A fiery dissent from Justice Scalia

Also included
in the ruling is a fiery dissent from Justice Scalia, who questions the
Court's constitutional ability to decide these kinds of cases. Scalia says:

This case is about power in several respects. It is
about the power of our people to govern themselves, and the power of this Court
to pronounce the law. Today’s opinion aggrandizes the latter, with the
predictable consequence of diminishing the former. We have no power to decide
this case. And even if we did, we have no power under the Constitution to
invalidate this democratically adopted legislation. The Court’s errors on both
points spring forth from the same diseased root: an exalted conception of the
role of this institution in America.

The Court is eager -- hungry -- to tell everyone its view of the legal question
at the heart of this case. Standing in the way is an obstacle, a technicality of
little interest to anyone but the people of We the People, who created it as a
barrier against judges' intrusion into their lives. They gave judges, in Article
III, only the "judicial Power," a power to decide not abstract questions but
real, concrete "Cases" and "Controversies."

Thus Scalia brings up a larger and very serious issue -- Can the Court
pronounce the law? -- that is the genesis of the despotic judicial activism in
America and should have been addressed a long time ago, but particularly now.

The Prop 8 Case

The Prop 8 case is a little more complicated. The Court accepted the case and heard
the arguments. Then they used a technicality to avoid making a ruling at all.

In a 5-4 decision, the Court said that the plaintiffs in the case didn't have
standing to file the original suit to overturn the Federal District Court
decision in August, 2010, which had ruled California's Prop 8 (which created a
state constitutional amendment defining marriage as between only one man and one
woman) to be in violation of the US Constitution. That
was unsuccessfully appealed in the 9th Circuit Court, and then went to the US
Supreme Court.

This was the problem: Normally, the plaintiffs would be the state officials,
defending the law against the court's ruling. But in a very unusual move,
California's pro-gay Governor and Attorney General refused to challenge the
lower court decision. So a group of people who had organized the Prop 8 movement
filed the suit themselves to defend the law. The Federal justices had no problem with that, and
California law allows it. But the Supreme Court Justices said that those
plaintiffs were not directly "affected" by the lower court ruling, and the
Supreme Court's procedure was not to grant them standing. However, as the
Court's minority opinion pointed out, they were considered to have standing
under California laws, so it should have been allowed.

This appears to be an act of political cowardice on the part of the Supreme
Court more than anything else. Everyone had expected them to go ahead and rule
one way or the other, rather than find a way to avoid the issue. An obvious
question, also, is: Why didn't the pro-family lawyers anticipate that, and
include someone with obvious standing, such as a town clerk?

In addition, many believe that Justice Roberts should have recused himself from
the Prop 8 case entirely. As was
reported in CNSnews, Roberts' first cousin is a lesbian living in California
who wants to get "married" to her female partner. Roberts gave her a front-row
seat at the Supreme Court DOMA and Prop 8 hearings, and she wrote on
a lesbian website that she was confident Roberts would rule "in favor of
equality." Had Roberts recused himself, it would have been a tie.

This ruling means that the Federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling against
Prop 8 -- which affected all of California -- is vacated, but the lower Federal District Court ruling against Prop 8 stands.
However, that Federal District only covers parts of northern California. (So in
that sense, the DOMA ruling has a positive aspect!) What
about the other parts of California? Right now, that's up in the air.
Technically, Prop 8 should be in effect in the rest of California.

We think the most likely thing to happen is that the Governor and Attorney
General will simply ignore the "district" problem and start issuing "gay
marriage" licenses throughout California. This would be an outrage, but not
surprising. In fact, they have already announced their intentions to move in
that direction.

Re-file the suit? It would appear that the a plaintiff with standing
could re-file the appeal in the 9th Circuit Court. Such a plaintiff might be a
town clerk who would be "affected" by the marriage law change. And hopefully
they would get different judge than the "out" homosexual Judge Vaughn Walker.
But at this
point, we haven't heard anything along those lines.

Differing opinions. The Boston Metro
newspaper published the reactions to the Doma ruling from a lesbian activist
-- and MassResistance.

We are reluctant to sound unkind to the pro-family legal people who worked
hard on these cases. But this is such a horrible outcome that something must be
said.

Both of these cases suffered from an unaggressive and short-sighted approach
that bordered on incompetence. The pro-family side did not present a credible
case in either of these cases. They were deathly afraid that telling the truth
about homosexuality might offend someone. By not effectively countering the absurd arguments
and assumptions by the homosexual movement, they made it easy for the judges to rule
as they did.

The Prop 8 case

In the Federal District Court case in 2010 the homosexual lobby's lawyers
bombarded the court with their well-honed talking points on "marriage",
"family", the welfare of children of same-sex couples, and the like. They
portrayed same-sex "marriages" as natural constructs that conservatives
don't happen to like.

But
as we reported at the time, the pro-family lawyers refused to consider using
the medical and psychological dangers and moral issues surrounding homosexuality
as a counter-arguments. Instead they came up with soft arguments like "every
child needs a father and a mother." In fact, the lawyers on our side
accepted California's civil union law, which allows homosexual
"parenting," as a legitimate compromise. This made their "mother and
father" argument impossible to defend.

The handling of the case was so bad that the Federal District Court
judge -- the "out" homosexual judge -- rebuked the pro-family lawyers for the lack
of evidence they presented! It was almost as if the judge had no choice but
to rule against us, based on what he had to work with.

When it got to the Supreme Court, it was no better. Our lawyers gave no credible
reasons why same-sex couples should even be treated differently, much less any
kind of immoral or destructive situation.

Thus, the Court's Prop 8 ruling observed:

The Ninth Circuit concluded that "taking away the
official designation" of "marriage" from same-sex couples, while continuing to
afford those couples all the rights and obligations of marriage, did not further
any legitimate interest of the State. . . . Proposition 8, in the court's view,
violated the Equal Protection Clause because it served no purpose "but to impose
on gays and lesbians, through the public law, a majority's private disapproval
of them and their relationships."

In other words, our "private disapproval" of them is all we could muster, and
in the Courts eyes this now constitutes needless bigotry.

We pointed out long ago (2001-2007 in Massachusetts) that to commpromise by
accepting the concept of "civil unions" would irrevocably harm our side's
ability to argue against the later demands for "full equality" which were
certain to follow.

The DOMA case

The DOMA case was even worse. Issues such as the morality of homosexuality, the
perversion of the behavior itself, the absurd "equality" of homosexual
relationships to heterosexual relationships, the bizarre effects on children
having "two dads", and the overwhelming medical and psychological
problems
associated with homosexuality were the underlying reasons for the law's original
passage. These are all legitimate issues. But the pro-family lawyers were
afraid to use these arguments.

At the hearing Justice Kagan herself brought up the law's original morality
argument, but our side wouldn't touch it. In the end, if we don't even mention
any of these issues, then why should the Justices consider them?

Thus, the Justices accepted the premise that homosexuals are
a "class" of people who are born that way, and that there is nothing immoral or
perverted (or destructive) about that behavior. It's just something
conservatives don't like, they've concluded. And -- like the Massachusetts Goodridge "gay marriage"
ruling in 2003 -- that opened the Pandora's box of new Constitutional interpretation.

The Judges' opinion used twisted legal reasoning that enforcing the normal
definition of marriage is in fact a terrible violation of the US Constitution's
Fifth Amendment ("no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property,
without due process of law") and 14th Amendment ("equal protection under the
law").

Thus, the DOMA court ruling states:

The [US House of Representatives] concluded that DOMA
expresses "both moral disapproval of homosexuality, and a moral conviction that
heterosexuality better comports with traditional (especially Judeo-Christian)
morality." The stated purpose of the law was to promote an "interest in
protecting the traditional moral teachings reflected in heterosexual-only
marriage laws." Were there any doubt of this far-reaching purpose, the title of
the Act confirms it: The Defense of Marriage . . .
[T]he principal purpose and the necessary effect of this law are to demean those
persons who are in a lawful same-sex marriage. This requires the Court to hold,
as it now does, that DOMA is unconstitutional as a deprivation of the liberty of
the person protected by the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution.
The liberty protected by the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause contains
within it the prohibition against denying to any person the equal protection of
the laws. While the Fifth Amendment itself withdraws from Government the power
to degrade or demean in the way this law does, the equal protection guarantee of
the Fourteenth Amendment makes that Fifth Amendment right all the more specific
and all the better understood and preserved.
The class to which DOMA directs its restrictions and restraints are those
persons who are joined in same-sex marriages made lawful by the State. DOMA
singles out a class of persons deemed by a State entitled to recognition and
protection to enhance their own liberty. It imposes a disability on the class by
refusing to acknowledge a status the State finds to be dignified and proper.
DOMA instructs all federal officials, and indeed all persons with whom same-sex
couples interact, including their own children, that their marriage is less
worthy than the marriages of others. The federal statute is invalid, for no
legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure
those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and
dignity. By seeking to displace this protection and treating those persons as
living in marriages less respected than others, the federal statute is in
violation of the Fifth Amendment. This opinion and its holding are confined to
those lawful marriages.

This is all legal nonsense. But this is where we're at now.

A larger problem in the conservative movement

The cowardly nature of the pro-family movement has wrought terrible consequences
and continues to be a huge problem. The DOMA case represents the tip of the
iceberg. This unwillingness to address the underlying issue of homosexuality
itself -- the behavior, its associated health risks, the profound moral issues,
and the "born gay" myth -- gives that movement free rein to continue its march
through our institutions.

As comfortable an argument as it is, we must stop deluding ourselves that this
war is about the definition of marriage or children needing both a mother and a
father. It's a bare-knuckles battle about truth versus lies that we cannot
afford to continue to lose.

The recent SCOTUS ruling that stripped parts of DOMA indicates that perhaps the three branches of government are not actually co-equal as the Constitution defines. It seems that SCOTUS is more equal than the other branches.

The Defense of Marriage Act was properly debated in both chambers of Congress, passed 342/67 in the House and 85/14 in the Senate and signed into law by President Clinton in 1996. There have been few Bills in the entire history of the United States that passed with such overwhelming margins. And yet….SCOTUS disregarded that major fact. If the Judicial Branch can so easily toss aside legitimate laws duly enacted by the Executive and Legislative Branches then America is destined to topple.

What recourse is available to future Administrations or Congresses when the Judicial Branch runs roughshod over their Laws?

The SCOTUS majority also indicated they had no regard for the will of the people. There are 37 states (74%) that do not allow gay marriage. The vast majority of Americans reject gay marriage in the polls and at the ballot box. The people of California, one of the most liberal states in America, twice rejected gay marriage. And yet….SCOTUS allowed the will of the people to be totally ignored by ducking a proper ruling on Proposition 8.

What recourse is available to the people when the Courts turn a blind eye to their wishes?

Based on the rapid erosion of traditional American values and the loss of judicial restraint in our court system, Americans have only one recourse: elect true conservative leaders who will enact proper laws and who will empanel conservative judges who understand the Constitution.

Failure to properly identify and elect true conservatives allows the current batch of less-than-courageous GOP Senators to let Obama (and others like him in the future) pollute SCOTUS and Federal Circuit Courts with even more liberals. Remember, Sotomayer and Kagan could not have been seated without GOP votes in the Senate.

Now you see what that really means first hand.

Please help CP-USA get on the ballot in your state. Help us find and support conservative candidates

Wednesday, June 26, 2013

*6/17/13 UPDATE BELOW* Just moments ago, the U.S. Supreme Court announced its decision in the Proposition 8 case.

It is widely being mis-reported that the Court ruled against Prop 8. IT DID NOT!

Rather, the Court said it could not reach a decision because California government officials refused to defend the law. So it did not rule on Prop 8's validity.

In doing so, the Court also nullified the Ninth Circuit's ruling against Prop 8, which is a great victory in itself!

So, the voter-passed Constitutional Amendment to protect man-woman marriage remains the law of the land in California, because only an appellate court can strike down a voter proposition statewide.

But it remains to be seen what California officials will do now.

Right now we are heading down the steps of the Supreme Court building to a long bank of TV cameras and reporters, to deliver this statement:

“We are pleased that the Supreme Court has reversed the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals’ misguided decision that sought to invalidate Proposition 8. For the more than seven million Californians who have seen their vote stripped away from them, little by little, over the course of five years, that decision is gratifying.

“While it is unfortunate that the Court’s ruling does not directly resolve questions about the scope of the trial court’s order against Prop 8, we will continue to defend Prop 8 and seek its enforcement until such time as there is a binding statewide order that renders Prop 8 unenforceable.

“We are also especially grateful and humbled by the consistent prayers and support of traditional marriage supporters everywhere throughout this long and difficult case.”

Please stay tuned for a detailed analysis of the Court's decision from our official Prop 8 Legal Defense Team. See also coverage by our dedicated co-counsel in the case, Alliance Defending Freedom.

But for now, let's be thankful that the Court refused to strike down Prop 8!

Very truly yours, Andy Pugno, Prop 8 General Counsel

----------------------------------------------------------

REACTION FROM CATHOLICVOTE.ORG

What a morning. Time to exhale.

What you are reading in the news is not the whole story.

Moments ago the Supreme Court handed down two very narrow decisions. Both of them were wrong. But the marriage fight is far from over.

Let me explain.

In essence, the Court invalidated a portion of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and rejected the right of the people to defend a law passed by millions of citizens in California. The Court ducked the question of whether Proposition 8 in California is constitutional – and most importantly, did NOT create a constitutional right to same-sex marriage.

States that have protected marriage and those that seek to do so in the future cannot be stopped.

The Court did disenfranchise millions of voters with its decision on Proposition 8. Five Supreme Court justices effectively dismissed the votes of millions of citizens who twice voted to protect marriage. Nevertheless, the record in California is now plain: the people voted to protect marriage, but reckless politicians refused to respect the right of the people and enforce the law.

What is left is a single decision by a district court judge that applies to two couples. The legal fight to clarify what happens next will be critical and will be heavily contested by defenders of marriage in the courts. Same-sex marriage advocates touting immediate statewide gay marriage in California are misleading the public.

But wait. There’s more.

Today’s decision striking down portions of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was limited to only those same-sex "marriages" already recognized in the states that allow same-sex marriage.

Also, remember that other parts of DOMA protect states from being forced to recognize same-sex marriage in other states. That portion of the law was not challenged and remains in force – and in some ways was strengthened by today’s decision.

Thus, while today’s decisions were very disappointing, they do not represent a watershed moment for marriage as many are suggesting. Same-sex marriage advocates did not get what they wanted, namely a “Roe v. Wade” for same-sex marriage.

We have a clear path forward to protect marriage and respond to these rulings, in Congress and in the states, and in the hearts and minds of our fellow citizens. The future of marriage remains a dispute open to ‘We the People.’

The debate on marriage lives on and is up to us.

And you can count on CV to keep up the fight.

Catholic Vote

------------------------------------------------------------

MORE FROM THE PROP 8 LEGAL TEAM (6/27/13)

If you're like most people, you're probably totally confused by the conflicting news reports about today's Supreme Court rulings.

I believe that has happened because our opposition was ready to declare total victory no matter what happened. Despite getting almost none of what they sued for, they nevertheless claimed a sweeping victory... and the media has largely repeated their version of the outcome without question.

Here are some key facts about today's two rulings in the Prop 8 and Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) cases:

1. By a 5-4 decision, the Court struck down a narrow portion of DOMA that deals only with federal recognition of marriages in those states that have adopted gender-neutral marriage. The majority opinion specifically said it was NOT requiring states to adopt same-sex "marriage."

2. Also by a narrow, 5-4 decision, the Court chose to AVOID ruling on Proposition 8's validity. You can read the Court's opinion (deciding NOT to decide) here. They held that, since California's government officials refused to defend Prop 8, there was no "case" for the Court to decide. The minority opinion (by four judges) dissented, agreeing with our California Supreme Court that we--as the official proponents--should be allowed to give Prop 8 a defense.

3. The Supreme Court did NOT accept our opponent's pleas to change the definition of marriage, nor did it declare a constitutional right to same-sex "marriage."

5. California's Constitution says that only an appellate court, not a single trial court judge, can stop a proposition's enforcement statewide. As of today, there is no such ruling. Nevertheless, the Governor and Attorney General today rushed forward with plans to make same-sex "marriage" licenses available throughout California in the next three or four weeks.

And that is where it sits this evening. Our Legal Team is closely examining today's court rulings, and assessing what, if any, options are available to us to keep Proposition 8 in force. This is a time for careful consideration and discernment, and we thank you in advance for your patience and continued support.

Friday, June 21, 2013

I couldn't be more disappointed by the ongoing race segregation among conservatives, promoted by Sean Hannity in this case on his Friday show tonight featuring "black conservatives" for a second time.

I am not sure how we got to this point, but I have been aware for a few years now that conservatives seem to like this idea of putting its black proponents on display.

This is nothing short of the right wing throwing the race card back at the left. And every time I see it I am disgusted by it.

I want to make clear, I have nothing against most of these folks who are black and conservative. We might have disagreements here and there, but by and large these are good people with conservative values and positions.

But so are brown conservatives. And Asian conservatives. And Native American conservatives. And Indian and African and - yes - White conservatives.

This idea that Hannity and other shows and websites would focus on presenting black conservatives is a direct response to the hysteria over first black president of the United States. And it's misguided at best, racist at worst.

It almost reminds me of black minstrel shows back in the day, the way conservative blacks are paraded on television. I know what I'm saying may be offensive to some, but this is a very important point. Mr. Hannity seems to be saying, "hey look! We have blacks on our side too!"

Doesn't it seem as though we are separating conservatives into groups by race, so that we can try and compete with liberals on the same race-based playing field the left has created? And honestly: Why in the world would we want to do that?

I have run into so many smart, thoughtful conservatives online - on internet radio, blogs and websites, but not all of these conservative activists are black, so of course none of them are considered for the Hannity specials that introduce America to new conservative thinkers.

I think of two smart kids I know online - Caiden Cowger, who at the age of 14 made a mark online with his criticism of homosexual marriage, and Jayson Veley, who has finished his first year of college. Both are extremely talented, well spoken conservatives and both are, unfortunately for them, white. Neither therefore has a chance to be on the Hannity black conservatives special.

I'd be dishonest if I didn't include myself. I've had my top-notch internet radio show online now for 4½ years. I've just celebrated my 1000th show just a week ago. I don't think there is any question that I would not have a better chance of getting on the Hannity show if I were black.

I'm not complaining - I'm pointing out a simple fact. Mr. Hannity might be skipping over some of our best and brightest thinkers because they're not black conservatives. What a shame.

Racism shows up in many different ways, and if you ask me, Sean Hannity touting the latest "black conservatives special" is as racist as the black awards shows, the black congressional caucus, and the black college fund.

Monday, June 10, 2013

We have been pelted with one right after the other. I do not believe this is the result of a tenacious media nor politicians doing the right thing. No, I believe that God is shaking Obama's tree and bringing these things into the light. Luke 8:17 tells us, most definitely, that "there is nothing hidden that will not be disclosed, and nothing concealed that will not be known or brought out into the open." This is the word of God, mind you; not some half baked conservative writer at The Blasé.

So what do we have so far? Two we knew of already: The Fast & Furious gun running scandal that the ATF and DOJ were involved in. Atty. General Eric Holder should have been forced to resign on that issue alone. US Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry lost his life, along with untold dozens of innocent Mexicans at the hands of drug cartels armed with guns from Mr. Holder.

We also knew of Benghazi, where four Americans died at our consulate there. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama lied for weeks, and the National Security Adviser Susan Rice went on five - count 'em five! - Sunday morning news talk shows and lied to the American people each time.

But now we have: (3) IRS targeting of conservative groups, denying or delaying 501c (4) status and affecting the 2012 election; (4) The AP news reporters and editors phone records seized by the Dept of Justice (Holder again); (5) Fox reporter James Rosen investigated as a criminal (DOJ again); (6) Verizon et al: Top Secret court order for ALL customers calling records; (7) HHS employees insider-trading probe of Medicare: Employees were given secret information; and (8) State Dept cover-ups: Prostitution charges and drug rings and who knows what else.

So there you have it. And by Friday, probably a couple of more. Any ONE of these scandals would have sent Bush to the showers. It's time Obama be forced out of office by any and all Americans with a sense of Constitutional liberty.

Monday, June 3, 2013

Boston Red Sox having "Gay Pride Day" at Fenway Park this Thursday, June 6!
"Gay" basketball player Jason Collins throwing out first pitch. Take action.

Yet another place to keep your children away from.

This Thursday evening, June 6, in an outrageous show of anti-family
radicalism, the Boston
Red Sox are celebrating Gay "Pride Night" at Fenway Park at their home game with
the Texas Rangers. This is an official celebration of "Gay Pride Week" (going on
now) and the Red Sox will be donating money to support the week's "gay" events.

According to the official "Pride Week" website, the Red Sox are partnering with the Boston Pride Committee, and this is
an "official 2013 Pride
Event." Furthermore, during the game, Boston's "LGBT community will be
recognized."
The Boston Red Sox will have a special "gay" section in the grandstand
and will donate a percentage of the proceeds that night to Boston
Pride. In an effort to involve more young people.
the Red Sox flyer on this was handed out at the LGBT Youth Pride event on
May 18.

According to a Red Sox staffer we spoke to, "gay" basketball player Jason
Collins will be throwing out the first pitch that night.

It made the front page of the local homosexual newspaper Bay Windows.

Celebrating a week of obscene perversion

The Red Sox have been around long enough to know that "Pride Week" in Boston is
a hideous, obscene, and outright disgusting display of perverse activities.
(Plus, in
recent years, more young people have been drawn in through Boston Pride's
management of Massachusetts Youth Pride every May.)

And the Boston Red Sox organization are not only going to celebrate it at their
ballpark, but will be financially supporting it from their ticket sales.

Here are just a few PUBLIC examples from past Boston "Gay Pride Week"
activities
that the Red Sox are supporting (Note: This does not include
things we simply can't publish in an email). [Photos by MassResistance]

Not the first time the Red Sox have supported
homosexual activism

This not the first time that the Red Sox have supported the homosexual movement,
although it's the most blatant and outrageous to date.

Across the country there are young people with great big, new ideas for our country's future who are not very likely to find their way into politics.

A store clerk in Toledo who has terrific, fresh ideas for clean energy policy, but can't afford an unpaid internship to work for his senator. A student body president in Las Vegas who watches C-SPAN religiously, but doesn't see anyone who looks like her on the House floor.

Young people like these being handed an instruction manual and shown how to succeed in shaping their country? That's not a very likely story.

But then, a skinny guy with a name that was hard for most people to pronounce getting elected president of the United States was also an unlikely story -- until you decided to make it happen.

Democrats are looking to make some exciting things happen. This summer, 40 young people from underrepresented communities across the country will be flown to Washington, D.C. for the Hope Institute -- a crash course in political organizing, where they'll get to hear from seasoned campaign veterans and public servants, and gain the tools to help write the next great chapter in our nation's history.

And Democrats are picking up the tab, because we believe that helping to cultivate the next generation of Democratic leaders is worth investing in -- and because sometimes the same old story won't do. This is something that means a lot. I hope you'll support this important work:

Thanks, Barack

---------------------------

The problem here is that conservatives and Republicans are NOT doing anything like this! Isn't it time?? -Jz

Saturday, June 1, 2013

Betcha no one saw this coming: Tim Tebow, whose camp just yesterday said his NFL career might be over, has announced that he is gay. The result? The San Francisco 49ers and the Green Bay Packers have begun a bidding war to acquire the nation's first gay NFL player.

"We can't think of anything more 'super' than putting together a Superbowl team with a gay Quarterback," said Mark Murphy, Packers CEO. "If we'd known Tim was gay we'd have jumped on him before he went to Denver."

Jim Harbaugh, 49ers head coach, was ecstatic. "Nothing says gay better than San Francisco, and nothing says gay football better than the 49ers. What could be better than having a gay quarterback on a gay team in a gay city? We want Tebow. The Kaepernick era is over, he's up for grabs."

For his part, Mr. Tebow has been fairly quiet since the announcement. But in an interview with ESPN Radio's Freddie Coleman, Tim said that he was simply tired of being overlooked.

"I really wanted to be successful because I played hard and got the job done. But once that became impossible, I figured I might as well come out of the closet and use that to my advantage," he said.

Some LGBT Activists are unconvinced. "This could be a gay fake," said Troy Vincent, NFL senior vice president of player engagement. "We have a good relationship with Athlete Ally and GLAAD. If it turns out that Tebow really does like girls instead, the NFL could make gay people upset."

Right now though, Tebow is sitting pretty, with his legs crossed effeminately. "I can't tell you in real numbers, but let's just say that being gay is worth big money," he said. "The 49ers offered me 8 figures to play for two years, and the Fudge Packers responded with even more."

Tim's prospects are very much improved now that he's gay. Where just a few hours ago he was preparing to leave the NFL for good, he's now being pursued by two very gay NFL teams. "I can't wait for Breast Cancer Awareness Month," Tim said. "We get to wear all that great pink stuff!"